Michigan's Ominous Message for Hillary Clinton

John Nichols
Tue Jan 15, 10:59 PM ET

The Nation -- DETROIT -- The question in Tuesday's Michigan Democratic primary was not whether Hillary Clinton could beat anybody. The question was whether Clinton could beat nobody.

As the only leading Democratic contender to keep her name on the ballot after Michigan officials moved their primary ahead of the opening date scheduled by the Democratic National Committee, Clinton was perfectly positioned. She had no serious opposition. She also had the strong support of top Michigan Democrats such as Governor Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow.

Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. That's how it went for George Bush when he was running without serious opposition in Republican primaries in 2004, and for Bill Clinton when he was essentially unopposed in the Democratic primaries in 1996.

But Hillary Clinton got nowhere near 90 percent of the vote in Tuesday's Michigan primary.

<snip>

A remarkable 40 percent of Michiganders who participated in the primary voted for nobody, marking the "Uncommitted" option on their ballots. Another 4 percent backed Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who brought his anti-war, anti-corporate campaign to Michigan and made some inroads among Muslim voters in the Detroit area and liberals in Washtenaw County -- where he was taking almost 10 percent.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080116/cm_thenation/1271003

unopposed candidates in a situation like this usually do much, much better- like closer to 90% of the vote. Of course you won't recognize it, but the facts are still the facts: Dem turnout was low. She had no opposition. 45% of voters still voted against her. 73% of African Americans voted against her. She's big trouble as our nominee unless Huckabee is the nom, and perhaps Romney. McCain? She'll try pulling the 35 years of experience on him and he'll blow her out of the water. Independents won't vote for her and neither will disaffected repubs.

Since when did the "virtually unopposed" candidates who got 90%, supposedly setting an absurd bar, run in a primary that would result in no delegates? Since when did they have big name opponents pushing their supporters tovote "uncommitted"? Michigan means little and all it does mean is Hillary gets a bit of good PR that sounds fine to the borderline interested but not to the very interested. The completely uninterested of course will be oblivious.

into a predictable left-left/ultra left wing rag....No longer journalism of DEMOCRATIC issues/discussion.

Whether the analyst is left, right, corporate or other.

My, my!

Tesha

Since when is it the business of the Democratic party to trash the left? What does "ultra left" eve mean? Certainly the old FDR coalition is far to the left of the current Democratic party. Would moving in the direction of the FDR New Deal program be "ultra left" to you? Since "ultra left" is relative, as the party moves to the right everything that the party once stood for could eventually be sneeringly dismissed as "ultra-left" could it not?

You won't see the Republicans trashing their own like this. They know where they stand, they know who they represent, they know where the battle lines are drawn. They support and promote the interests of the wealthy and powerful few. Why cannot we support and promote the interests of the 90% of the population living from paycheck to paycheck without being characterized as the "ultra left?" Why would we assist the opposition by trashing our own?

If the Democratic party cannot be left wing, what is it? And if leftists do not have a home in the Democratic party, why do we blame them for criticizing the party? This isn't logical.

How are we any better than the Republicans if we trash the message by attacking the messenger, and how does it help the party to trash the messenger by calling it the “ultra left.”

Newsflash—there is no “ultra left” in this country. There is barely any kind of left at all.

She was nowhere near expected to get 90%, they have been pushing the uncommitted vote for ages now as a vote for Obama and Edwards but they failed miserably.

They pulled their names off the ballot and Clinton wins heavily here anyway and she did by over 92,000 votes ahead.

Sour grapes is coming from those camps. Over 328,000 people voted for Hillary, they came out for her but oh no its bash Hillary time again.

But the anti-Hillary folks just ignore the debunkings and repeat their accusations. It reminds me of the 9/11 conspiracy guys.

Because the party said that the new primary dates broke the rules? And that almost all of the candidates stepped out of that one because of that.

But Rule breakers are fine as long as they are people like Hillary or Lieberman. But no one better not DARE say anything bad about the inevitable Candidate Clinton lest the Hillbots descend on you like ravenous locusts.

spin, Clintonians, spin. She won nothing last night. That's not sour grapes- at all. When she won NH, I congratulated her and her supporters, but saying she won in MI, is giggle inducing. She had NO competition. Turnout was low. And she still had 45% voting AGAINST her. You wanna call that a win, feel free. The rest of aren't so into self-deception.

In similar circumstances, other candidates HAVE gotten 90%.

You can poke your head in the sand, it's solid good news to me.

I had a bunch of messages on my phone recorder. All from Republicans or their minions. Nothing from Hillary. Nothing from anyone advocating "uncommitted".

Who is "They" who were pushing the uncommitted vote? And who were they pushing. I saw none of it, other than on DU.

Bashing Hillary? She's the one doing the end-zone victory dance when she was the only one in the contest. She should just take her delegates and stfu. Too much bragging and the state could go "red" in Nov.

Of course as her name was on the ballot, her supporters would show up. Others stayed home or voted uncommitted. I know a lot of dems who sat out the election because they were disenfranchised. The "vote" was not a referendum on Hillary support in Michigan

How can the supporters of the other candidates be crying sour grapes when their candidates were not even on the ballot? It doesn't apply here. "Sour grapes" means that when you lose, you say you didn't want to win anyway. No one is saying that.

Why the "sour grapes" nonsense anyway? That is adolescent schoolyard sneering and jeering - bullying, in other words. It can only enflame people and does not contribute anything positive or constructive to the discussion.

Its obvious the Edwards and Obama camps only got 40% combined and Clinton got 55%. She wasn't running unopposed, she ran against the uncommitted and Kucinich. This guys argument might have been substantiated had there not have been an "uncommeitted" on the ballot, but there was. Instead of leaving it alone, it is also obvious that the "sour grapes" crowd can't handle defeat without trying to spin a loss into something else.

Hillary dazzled viewers by taking control and soundly defeating her opponents in the Nevada debate last night. She has the Big Mo, so it looks like she will be the target for all of the "sour grapes" crowd until she loses it, or wins.

The only people spinning it as a win are- surpise, surprise- the Clintons and their supporters.

The only ones spinning it against Clinton are the ones opposed to Clinton. Sorry, you can't win this argument. All you can do is make excuses.

I read what the pundits said last night before the Primary, they said anything of under 50% is a loss or weak victory anything from 55% upwards was a good victory, you lot just cant handle that Michigan was offered Uncommitted to come out and vote for Obama and Edwards, that was made clear in Michigan but yet they gave Hillary a lead of 92;000. I find you very disrespectful to the voters who came out to vote, Obama supporters consistently blow the every vote counts mantra, yet Hillarry gets huge votes and you go, it doesnt count.

2 faced is what it is.

much of anything. It's hard to analyze a debacle.Many Dems just didn't bother to show up.We will never know what the outcome would have been for Michigan were we allowed a real primary.I,for one,would have loved to be involved in the real process.
Edited for typo.

Clintonians just don't want to recognize that she's in real trouble if she's the nom. Just the fact that 73% of African Americans rejected her in MI should set off alarm bells.

That's exactly the kind of trouble we want!

Bush, she really wasn't unopposed in Michigan. There were people suggesting an undecided vote.

In reality, this primary is useless. You can speculate anything. I would guess that people backing HRC would be more likely to turn out because they could at least vote for her rather than undecided. You could argue that liberal backers of Dean would boycott the primary or that people angered by how MI was treated would be more likely to vote than those who were not. What's known is that the turnout was extremely low.

It is interesting to see this spin, because the one I would have expected was the one postulated before the primary that the results would be treated as those of a normal primary, where the others considered it non-competitive. Either way though is just speculation.
(One of the dumber things would be to use the exit poll information - because it is impossible to claim that those who voted were like those who didn't, but normally would.

Only Kucinich campaigned in Michigan. The others followed the DNC and did not campaign.

Feel sorry for the people of Michigan who went to the polls knowing that their votes counted for nothing. Michigan needs a lot of help and this stopped them from hearing from the Dem candidates...all the candidates.

However if you think Michigan is bad, then contemplate the debacle coming up in Florida.

I can't believe the parties had no one skilled enough to arbitrate a better solution between the states and the DNC and RNC. (They're punishing the states by giving them half the delegates. They did not discourage participation. (I like their solution better than ours, though it still penalizes the people of those states for something they could not control.)

Obama and Edwards split 40 % between them. I think that is the only way to look at it. There are also a lot of people in Michigan who like Clinton and Edwards. Everyone I know, including some at my church, are split between Clinton and Edwards. I personally do not know anyone who supports Obama in my surroundings at this point.

:thumbsup:

Obama and Edwards got 40% of the vote? Without campaigning? Without having their names on the ballot?

That is "the only way to look at it?" Why? Why is the way you prefer to look at it the only way to look at it?

Your view strongly suggests some spectacular strength on the part of Edwards and Obama, doesn't it?

The fact that blacks are rejecting her is true. I listen to the Tom Joyner and Warren Valentine show and 9 to 1 people are disgusted with the Clintons.

I am African American and if Obama or Edwards are the nominee I will gladly go out and campaign and vote for them. If Hillary is the nominee I will stay home and rearrange my sock drawer on November 4th.

And you will get what you deserve

They want you to stay home.

And we all share your concern.

:rofl:

The recent race baiting was dreadful politics on Obama's part, and should Clinton win the nomination it will take a powerful speech on his part to undue the damage. Should Obama, who I support, win, the Republicans will exploit the race baiting in his campaign just as they exploited race issues under Reagan.

on anyone else. And you've said you support Obama for awhile, and I still maintain you have a funny way of showing it.

The one who plays best wins. Overall, I support Obama because he's done a great job wooing independents and Republicans, while Clinton only seems to be going after Democrats. Politically, I support Edwards, as he's the only liberal in the race, but I think after 230 years it's about time we have something other than white man in the White House. I support Obama because I think he can win. I'm not so sure the others can. I do not like Obama's vagueness, his religious crap, the way he's handled gay and women's issues, but believe he's doing what's necessary to win the Presidency, which is the bottom line for me.

I agree that too many people look at political campaigns as though they were sports matches, and that the mass media encourages that, but that doesn't mean we need to succumb to that thinking and then promote it.

Your post implies that the battle is solely to win, even if that means that the party doesn't "handle gay and women's issues" well. What sort of "winning" is that? Why must we accept your view that the traditional Democratic party principles and ideals are not compatible with winning?

I strongly believe that it is this type of thinking - ironically - that causes the party to lose. What is worse, when we compromise principles and ideals for the sake of winning we lose the principles and ideals and elections. We lose both ways.

What the public really hates about the Democratic party is the willingness by too many to waffle and compromise in a calculate effort to win by mediocrity and triangulating. Yet people continue to advocate that "practical" course. Being a Democrat mean that practicality is the same as idealism. When the party operated on principles and ideals we won more elections, not fewer.

This may be a game to you, but it is not for the millions of suffering people in the country.

... I am thinking about the millions of people who suffer from Republican policies. For me, the most important thing is to get a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. Obviously, I think all the candidates are fairly liberal and good on civil rights, but as I see it they are running campaigns and as such as trying to make themselves more palatable to the center where the race will be decided. It is absolutely a game. Maybe it shouldn't be, but frankly it always has been. You can go back at least to the election of 1804 and see the lies and misinformation spread to win the game.

Practicality - getting Democrats elected - and idealism - strongly advocating for the traditional ideals and principals of the party - are not contradictory, they are complementary. It is amazing how many people are convinced that they are in opposition to each other. That is a trap the right wingers set for us, and we fell right into it.

I don't believe races are decided in the middle. Of course if we keep saying that and keep acting on that basis, then that is where they will be decided. Races are decided in the heart - the heart of people's concerns. The Republicans nave been clobbering us there and will continue to so long as we cooperate within their context.

None of the candidates are any good on civil rights nor are they very liberal. The party rolled over for all of the Republican legislation and executive orders that gutted the Bill of Rights. "Liberal?" Sure, on everything but the core and fundamental principles of the party, with all of the liberal positions defined by the right wing. I don't call that very liberal, not by the standards that the party once held and that brought the party its greatest electoral success in the past.

Edwards at least - for all of his faults - is staking out the traditional positions of the party. You have to start with whose side you are on. Once the people recognize that we are on their side, all of the liberal causes can be much more easily advanced. So long as we see them as a "them" - a bunch of sheeple who must agree with us before we let them join the elite and enlightened club - they reject us.

Liberal cause number one: strongly represent the have-nots in opposition to the Republican's strong representation for the wealthy and powerful few. From that, all good things flow. Without that, we are left with pandering to the middle and we are certain of failing.

"More palatable to the center?" How awful. Sorry, but I completely reject that. The "palatable" pabulum the party is serving up is exactly what the people are rejecting. So long as we are ashamed of who we are, and think that the public is rejecting what we have to offer, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The caution and double-talk is what makes the public suspicious of Democrats.

The Republican party is quite clear whose interests they represent—the wealthy and powerful few. Were we as clear as they are, and were we strong advocates for the other 90% and willing to fight the battle where the battle actually is, we would sweep every office. So long as we cower and limp around playing to the mythical “middle” and operating on the assumption that people are rejecting us, we are playing on the opponent’s battlefield, by their rules, and at their beck and call.

I am not talking mere idealism. I am talking about how to practically sweep the right wingers out of power for a generation or more.

She is constantly attacked, and still, look at her. Maybe we are getting smarter and taking the media with a grain of salt.

There was a significant advertising campaign to protest the vote by choosing "uncommitted" newspaper ads, TV ads, fliers. It was everywhere. I personally wonder who was behind it, and My guess is that we would find Obama finger prints, and that IS advertising.

The vote was not against Clinton or Kucinich. It was a vote in protest.

That is not just aftican American support...... It was really a lousy result.

To go out in the freezing cold and VOTE "Uncommitted" against Clinton...is QUITE a statement.

"How'd Michigan shake out, Senator ?" "Landslide ?"

considering every voting Democrat knew that "uncommitted" included Obama and Edwards, I cannot come to this article's conclusion that the message was "ominous." It is (perhaps significantly) less meaningful than any other victory, but to compare her to sitting presidents, who really did run essentially unopposed, is ridiculous.

realize that we have 3 outstanding candidates, and they need more time to decide

Hillary got good percentage...and MSM can stuff it

is a joke.

Republicans didn't have a choice in 2004. Because there wasn't any serious opposition.

Democrats had a choice yesterday and voters knew and were told that by voting uncommitted that candidates like Obama and Edwards might receive those delegates. If Obama and Edwards and any other legitimate candidates were totally out of the running Hillary would had had the 90% range that Nichols stupidly wrote.

She can't win independent votes even when she's the only viable candidate on the ballot?

That is a bad, bad sign. Not just for Michigan, but the entire Midwest.

I'm also surprised that they didn't point out Oakland County, which is usually a source of intense scrutiny because it's pretty good at predicting whether the entire state will go blue or red. She only got 52% there. That signifies that, she should get the democratic nomination, the county (and possibly the state) will go red. The question here is whether the Independent voters voted for "uncommited or went Republican. I grew up in Oakland County and I know it well. It has always been a hotbed of anti-Hillary sentiment, but this result shocked even me.

So, it's ALL meaningless.

...and being on a ballot that people were told was worthless. No matter, though, if lies and half-truths help make a case against Hilary, then by all means go for it.

"As the only leading Democratic contender to keep her name on the ballot after Michigan officials moved their primary ahead of the opening date scheduled by the Democratic National Committee, Clinton was perfectly positioned. She had no serious opposition. She also had the strong support of top Michigan Democrats such as Governor Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow."

No mention of the Conyers' and the campaign for Uncommitted

"Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. That's how it went for George Bush when he was running without serious opposition in Republican primaries in 2004, and for Bill Clinton when he was essentially unopposed in the Democratic primaries in 1996."

Yes except they actually campaigned in the state whereas Hillary has not.